Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

HolyRomanEmperor

Stopped at (29/15/10) ended 02:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC). RfA restarted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4 by bureaucrat Linuxbeak

BUREAUCRAT'S NOTICE: If you are a Serb or a Croatian, this is not the place to engage in a fight. I am very close to restarting this RFA, as there has been obvious ethnic-related bickering involved. If I catch anyone using a sockpuppet or calling on friends to vote one way or the other because of ethnicity, I will block that person and discount that vote. I am serious about this. I will be checking for sockpuppets later tonight. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs) – HolyRomanEmperor is a great editor with over 4,700 edits and counting. He recently failed in a nomination earlier due to lack of project edits. Now that's all changed now. He is a great editor, fixing up many articles. He's done an excellent job in articles relating to the Balkan region of Europe like the article of Ban Tvrtko I of Bosnia and Duklja. Those are just the 2 of the fine articles he's done. More articles can be found on his userpage. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept --HolyRomanEmperor 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Nominator - CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Way? Can you give my argumet that he workit till this time about the Wikipedia and not for the Serbia.--Hipi Zhdripi 23:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck are you talking about? CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you are supporting him oly beacose he is a serbian, I oppose him not beacos he is a Serbian but beacos in the medium of the Edit War he was nominetit and he was part of this War that is not accepty nevermater how many supporters or opposers are. --Hipi Zhdripi 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC). Your last edits talk about the influence of the serbian user to you--Hipi Zhdripi 00:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, look. This is quite enough ethnic fighting. I will not have any more of it, or I will start warning people. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I'm not supporting him because he's a Serb, which he's not (my guess). I'm supporting him because of all his hard work in Wikipedia and his contributions. Plus, I'm supporting him for all the great work and effort he put into the articles listed on his user page and on his contribution page. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --serbiana - talk 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - He deserves to be an admin, he's very intelligent and hard working, good luck HRE!!![reply]
    I fully support the nomination of HolyRomanEmperor. He has contributed positively and he will continue to do so. Lord Eru
    How you can know that? He is in Edit War in all Kosovo articels in Wikipedia (Not it!! Is not only a article there are a lot of small Edit Wars, How I see in other articel about the Serbia and Balkan) To have a beter chance his is nomineten himself or beter to say his user account--Hipi Zhdripi 23:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I need a reason behind this support vote. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Very civl response to "vandalism oppose" vote below re-assuring -- Tawker 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support And I will strike any sockpuppet votes below. Moe ε 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--estavisti 23:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reasons I gave down below to the Croatian editors, I need a reason behind your vote. Otherwise, it will be discounted. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, despite the constant abuse thrown his way he manages to remain level-headed and as impartial as is humanly possible. Evidence of this is the fact that both Serbs and Croats are voting against him below, which surely wouldn't be the case if he was pushing some nationalist POV. --estavisti 13:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. And I am seriously concerned with what's going on in our Slav-related articles. We indeed need a level-headed Admin who will dedicate himself to that section of the project. I see no evidence that would indicate that HolyRomanEmperor can't be that person; rather on the contrary. Redux 00:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as per the great work he's done right here in Wikipedia and great number of edits. -- Gaius Julius Caesar 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reserved user account for voting See [1] --Hipi Zhdripi 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although this account was created on March 18th, this user has only made 7 edits (3 if you discount the vote and edits to the userpage). Unless a supporting reason with examples can be given, I will have to discount this vote. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I can't seem to find anything to edit. I go on Wikipedia a lot because I have no time. So I just vote quickly and leave. So please reconsider my vote. I have checked HRE's work quickly and have seen it to be hard work and I also checked his edit count, which was also too much fantastic. And, don't think my username is a voting reserve, which it's not. I just like to vote and I don't have time to browse through many pages in Wikipedia, so I just vote for articles and RfA's (this being my first). Ok, so please reconsider my vote. And Hipi Zhdripi, stop accusing many user's here who voted for HRE on this RfA. I think it's not very nice. Gaius Julius Caesar 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. very level-headed, though some of his countrymen and neighbors seem to be not so much. I really can find no evidence to suggest that he has engaged in any nationalist activities on Wikipedia (despite accusations below), and otherwise he seems like an excellent candidate. I would recommend for his own sake, however, that, should he become an admin, he should avoid adminstrator actions that might be taken as partisan or nationalist (hopefully, though, that is already obvious). —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 23 April 2006 @ 00:54 UTC
  8. Strong support per suspicions raised in crat's note. NSLE (T+C) at 00:56 UTC (2006-04-23)
    Support His edits look fine to me, but I'm not an expert on the Balkan conflicts. If someone provides me with specific difs and rationales, I may change my vote. JoshuaZ 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Terence Ong 02:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support (moved from neutral), because other than the trail of ticked off nationalists trailing behind him, he seems like a decent guy. Also, regarding his fairly recent block, it was requested by him in a dispute. [2] That, I think, demonstrates maturity in dealing with conflicts. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Seems to be experienced enough to be an admin. DarthVader 02:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I'm a american by the way Jaranda wat's sup 03:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Anyone who can put up with this much crap can handle being an admin. The fact that one of his blocks was self-requested makes freakofnurture's oppose vote seem less pertinent. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support, seems pretty good, but I'm a bit concerned by what freakofnurture (NOT FREAKOFNATURE) said. --Rory096(block) 04:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support; I've seen this guy around, making good edits. I trust him. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support With the amount of crap this user has been through and the fact he maintains his level headedness shows me he would be a good admin. I also agree with Rspeer's comments with regards to the self-requested block. I think its sad this vote has turned into an ethnic related free for all. I also personally cannot see ANYTHING wrong in the articles he has worked on that raise any sorts of red flags for me. TruthCrusader 10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I support this user for adminship since I know he his a good contributor. Litany 10:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 11:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support for his calmness and level-headedness when editing and discussing controversial topics, even on the face of personal attacks from many users; for his contribution to create and enhance a multitude of articles.--Asterion talk to me 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - as Tawker. Luka Jačov 13:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A very calm and good user. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Hahnchen 14:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Throw-the-socks-to-the-wind Support Kimchi.sg | talk 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support good work on Balkans-related articles. _-M o P-_ 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support - good knowledge of policy Will (E@) T 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support great contributor who's always willing to help Antidote 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support a good user. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - looks good. —Khoikhoi 22:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support a fantastic editor, I appreciate his equilibrium in such a hot area like the Balkans--Aldux 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Joe I 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - this RfA is doomed; mutual attrition will see to that. It's sad. I haven't seen any examples of this candidate's work that demonstrates anything other than good, sound level-headed editing. The last RfA failed, but when I look at the examples given, they demonstrate the opposite of what the opposers claim they do. - Richardcavell 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Whopper 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - --ManiF 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose This editor has been working mostly on Balkans topics, an area of great sensitivity. His editing in many articles has been strongly POV, often presenting only Serbian nationalistic views and completely ignoring any others, while explicitly claiming his edits are non-nationalistic. He has frequently and uncritically used dubious and openly nationalistic sources, but at the same time discounted Encyclopedia Britannica as having "[fallen] under heavy Greater Croatian influence". He presented claims he knew were disputed (from having previously edit warred over them) as uncontested facts in other articles. He accused other editors of vandalism for what was clearly a content dispute, and misrepresented outcomes of disputes or other people's comments on Talk pages. And lastly, he admitted recently of allowing other people (his brothers) the use of his account. In short, has very little understanding of either WP:NPOV oder WP:V and is very much unsuitable for adminship. --Elephantus 22:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples, please. You are a Croatian, and while this could be taken as an ad hominem fallacy, I'm noticing that there is a lot of headbutting between Serbs and Croatians. Please back up your vote with examples. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against Serb editors in general; most of them are good, some great, with valuable contributions. HolyRomanEmperor is sadly not such an editor. On 7 April he created an article under the name "Serbian Lands" here (article has been renamed since) where he lumps half of the former Yugoslavia under a heading "This is the list of Serbian People's lands." Such a nationalist POV-izing is rarely seen. The list of problems above was written from memory, I will provide more diff links shortly. --Elephantus 01:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After having edit warred extensively on Ruđer Bošković over the question of that scientist's ethnicity and thus having been made aware that it is a controversial issue, HolyRomanEmperor puts Bošković's name on the list of Serbs in another article, without mentioning the controversy at all, _twice_: here and here. He does a similar thing with Ivo Andrić, again refusing to acknowledge that controversy even exists, here. --Elephantus 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serbian Lands: Although I will not tread deeper into the fact that that article was AFAIK not created by me in person (since I cannot really prove it except by digging a litte irc Chat log, where I said that to User:PANONIAN several days ago), please note the nature of this dispute. So far, I have tried really to solve the issue on the problem over this article initiated and led by, among others, User:Elephantus. Please read Talk:Political_entities_inhabited_or_ruled_by_Serbs_during_the_history and notice my comments there.
    • Rudjer Boskovic: Please note that I have been involved with the Edit War over the article, and also note that this was a long time ago. But I note that most caution has to be given to the following: I was the only Contributor of the article in question that had the decency to admit that no one's version is NPOV. Not even the one I rv to. Then, like can be seen here, I reverted to the last version, long before the Edit War of User:Elephantus and User:Nikola Smolenski, an action supported by an administrator: User:Splash and then invited the warring parties to stop the Edit War and come to discuss (like can be seen here).
    Oppose only becose he is thinking that Wikipedia is a Encyclopedi of the Mytologie and his Edit Wars with many account are agains the Wikipedia Law (pilars). His station in Wikipedia it was the aticel Kosovo. This articel is now more thet 80% only Serbs Mytology and the montenegros launguage dont exist for him. His moto is "The Montenegros are Serbs, and Serbs are not Monternigros" (see Category and the project: [3] Category). From his 4,300 more than half was rev. of the Kosovo articels during the Edit War wich is going on.--Hipi Zhdripi 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your userpage seems to reveal a bias that I can not overlook. Quoting from said user page: The users who is maken the Serbo-Milosevic propagada wich has nothin to doo with the realty in Balkan: User:HolyRomanEmperor - is traing too be a Roman hero with Milosevic ide. So, already, there's a POV conflict here. Tell me why HolyRomanEmperor is unfit, and give diffs, or else I'm going to discount this vote. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment Kosovo: UN envoy calls on Serbia to end boycott policy in province And you can see hier his another user acount User:AsterionUser:Litany.
    There seems to be a campaign to discredit HolyRomanEmperor by certain extremists going on. Hipi Zhdripi was previously banned for repeated use of AOL sockpuppet accounts, page-blanking and vandalism (including vandalising many other wikipedians' userpages [4] [5] [6] [7]), leading to a request for semi-protection for several articles from myself. Since then, he insists on calling everyone who was ever involved in fighting his vandalism (including people merely using AntiVandal software) sockpuppets. It is really sad that the voice of individuals such as Hipi Zhdripi can be taken into consideration when dealing with a Request for Adminship. --Asterion 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I say NO to the nomination. HolyRomanEmperor vandalizes heavily the Albanian articles. There must be a special administrator to check only the vandalizes that are made by HolyRomanEmperor. --Aeternus 15:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism? Really? Please, if you've got specific examples, show the diffs. Otherwise, I'm going to ignore this vote. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No comment --HashimLopa 20:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to say HashimLopa's userpage is a cut-and-paste of mine, right down to the WikiBabel userboxes, a fact which I find more than a little annoying, as it's almost as if he's trying to impersonate me. --estavisti 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account was created today. 10 edits as of this vote, 8 if you discount the edits to his own user page and to HRE's talk page. Refuses to provide comment to oppose vote... unless you come up with a good reason to back up your vote, I'm ignoring it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes HashimLopa, you are new. Make a good reason why you oppose HRE. Also, Linuxbeat makes a good point in there. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 21:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At first he is the AOL user. I dont need to comment his work, he has maked someny edit wars in all articel about the Serbia and Serbs. He hase so many accounts here that I can t numbert it. I have maked a image about this person, not only in english wikipedia but in other languages to. The numer of 4,700 edits is nothin else only a saved pages or edi wars. My edits are hier:
    * 20:26, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor3 (→HolyRomanEmperor)
    * 20:23, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:HolyRomanEmperor (→Auuuuu) (top)
    * 20:20, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Government of Serbia (top)
    * 20:17, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Districts of Serbia (top)
    * 20:11, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) NIN (magazine) (top)
    * 20:03, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Siniša Mihajlović (Borovo is in Croaria) (top)
    * 20:01, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Siniša Mihajlović
    * 19:54, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Glas javnosti (top)
    * 16:09, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Serbs of Croatia (→Religion) (top)
    * 16:07, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) User:HashimLopa (top)
    and you have right. This is the minro of user : HolyRomanEmperor
    This vote is invalid. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for now. I've seen him in action in Balkans-related Talk pages, AfDs, etc., and while he can be more level-headed than many in that area, I think that he needs more experience and a better knowledge of and feel for Wikipedia policies. In another month or two, perhaps. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose He is working for Serbian Gouvermant. --LuneburgerHeide 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking this vote due to the account being created minutes ago. Moe ε 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You support this person just, because he s Serbian, not because of his work here. Just because I m new here, doesnt mean, that I m blind. I saw, what he d done at Hipis page and at the Kosovo page.
    Mind WP:CIVIL. Because you're new, thats why you're votes not going to be counted. I did not support because he is Serbian. I do not vote on race, beliefs or gender differences. I almost opposed because of a couple of reasons but I looked through his contributions and found he actually met my criteria, thats why I supported. Moe ε 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote is invalid. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you (Linuxbeak) on this. Also, how can HRE work for the Serbian Government? CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose again. Please see the previous nominations: [8] and [9]. --VKokielov 21:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for VKokielov: You did not vote on those nominations. Therefore, I would appreciate an explanation on this vote. --Asterion 11:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - The user's political views/convictions on a range of contentious issues are vividly reflected in his contributions. EurowikiJ 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples, please. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See islands and towns of southern Croatia such as Mljet, Dubrovnik, the province of Dalmatia (parts on the medieval history whereby they are "proven" to have belonged to Serbian rulers prior to "becoming" Croatian. Constant argument over the etnicity of Rudjer Boskovic. EurowikiJ 07:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I only contributed the History sections of those articles. Please note that I have had arguements over such articles like with User:Dr.Gonzo, but they have all ended peacefully, even with one of the two receiving a Barnstar. If writing about Serbian history on Wikipedia is a "mustn't have" for adminship, why isn't it present on Wikipedia:Administrators and/or Wikipedia:Administrators/Not_to_do? However, if you think that writing about Serbian history is really, really wrong for an admin (not really sure if that can be counted as enough to cast a vote), that I shall concentrate to other Histories and Literature, like Croatian (please see my contributions to Marko Marulić and Marin Držić), Slovenian, Macedonian, German and Greek; in which I am also highly interested.
    I have also begged this user twice to peacefully talk through anything that he considers improper with my edits (here and here) and have agreed with the user in question on an arguementhere. So, I think that more clarifications are required before validating this vote.
    All the best, my friend! --HolyRomanEmperor 10:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I will not be so harsh like Elephantus but I agree this user is too far from NPOV if we talk about Balkan topics and this user has been working mostly on Balkan topics. I don't think his point of view is unacceptable for him as editor because his POV is nearer to NPOV than POV of the majority of other users interested in Balkan topics but I think it is unnacceptable for admin. If this user's area of interest is something different, I will support this request for adminship. Sorry. Jakiša Tomić 23:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see above. I need diffs and examples. You are a Croatian, and while this could be taken as an ad hominem fallacy, I'm noticing that there is a lot of headbutting between Serbs and Croatians. Please back up your vote with examples. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Elephantus gave enough examples. I can only add fact that this user claims he is not a Serb (see talk page of Mir Harven) so I don't understand what "headbutting between Serbs and Croatians" has to do with this. Jakiša Tomić 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Firmly oppose all edit warriors and article owners. H.R.E. has 4,734 edits, but has only touched 276 distinct articles and only 730 pages overall. In fact, he has 235 edits to the same article, Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and over 100 edits to Duklja (a locality in the same geographical region) as well. Comparatively, he has fewer edits than this to the entire project namespace. Also, he's been blocked twice for 3RR apparently for edit warring in both cases. — Apr. 23, '06 [01:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Well, I have been blocked out of mere solidatization with the other party that had to be blocked out of simple good will. :) So please do not acuse me for edit warring. As for Wikipedia namespace, well, since when are the numbers all about? I am currently working on a new WikiProject myself, please check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Montenegro. All the best! --HolyRomanEmperor 10:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Change to oppose, per Freakofnature. --tomf688{talk} 02:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, I agree with Elephantus --SasaStefanovic • 03:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I read through Talk:Mehmed-paša Sokolović. The candidate does not seem to me to have the temperment appropriate for an admin; he does not seem to me to be seeking compromise and assuming good faith. Now, maybe this is even more true for the other side. But it is HRE who is being voted on. Comment to Linuxbeak. Obviously bad faith votes should be ignored and socks and meats. But in some of your comments above, you seem to require opposers to meet a standard of proof that implicitly does not assume good faith. Yes, if someone wants to convince others, they should provide evidence to back up their opinion. But they should be able to state their opinion without evidence and have their 'vote' counted nonetheless. Bucketsofg 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Opposed. Now, I must admit I have an almost-against-my-will affection for HRE. Also, he's contibuted to the wiki a lot-this can hardly be disputed. But, he is, unfortunately, engaged in the Serbian propaganda on the English wikipedia at the level far beyond what could be considered acceptable on this medium. No one can be perfectly detached, sure, but HRE's elaborations of the pages like Duklja, Dubrovnik, History of Bosnia and Herzegovina,...are examples of uncritical national romanticism that tries to sell as history fictions based mainly on 19th and early 20th century dated authors: probably Stanoje Stanojević, Vladimir Ćorović (he's not dated in many matters, but, still..), Vladislav Skarić etc. What's my point ? HRE wants to present the early and late medieval history of what is contemporary Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Croatia like Dalmatia and Dubrovnik as ethnically Serb, with, IMO, very visible contemporary political implications. This is not a presentation of some variants of historical discourse, but a national propaganda. Now-HRE is not completely one-sided in his approach, nor does he, according to the wiki record, see all things as black-and-white. He's a person one can talk to. He's someone I cannot help but feel an effection for. But: 1. to "enthrone" HRE as an administrator would lead to endeless bickering & edit wars, especially over controversial pages . I think that virtually all Croatian and Bosniak wikipedians would be rather firm in not accepting his position, mainly because he's got a reputation of a denier of vital parts of Bosniak, Montenegrin and Croatian identity and history. The talk pages of a zillion articles would fill to overflowing 2. all HRE's "positive" and "neutral" contributions are overshadowed by his, IMO, very partial approach to sensitive issues that have been mentioned in others's comments. Sorry-no.Mir Harven 13:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Holy is a great manipulator ready to lie in order to achive his goals. He spread propaganda all the time, everyone can check. This is what Holy said to one administrator about myself in order to block me: Greetings, vandal-fighter! I must say that I come bearing ill news, unfortunatly. I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of Doclea, Zeta (state), Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania. User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. For instance, he is deleting and changing (to a strange way) the beautiful lyrics of the poet Petar Petrović Njegoš (see?). I am afraid that my slow connection and little free time will not leave me enough time to revert all the incorrect date, unfortunatly. HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC) And I have never visited Rascia, Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania articles. As you can see above, he said: "User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles." Just check the history of these articles...He also did the same thing many times. I can quote all those cases (about alleged Vladimir Corovic source, about Ivo Andric, about Husein Gradascevic etc.). He is a great manipulator and nationalist. He put the source in the article and says it is a valid source, but when I check it, in most cases it is false. Also check his block log. He had many conflicts with Croat, Bosniak and Albanian users.--Emir Arven 14:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I do appreciate his enthusiasm, though I think he acts a bit too unilateral and deflects from reality. I would like to encourage him to put in more current views on the whole situation in the Balkans, to rethink certain events from a neutral point of view, instead of adding old views and patronizing ideologies used during Yugoslavia. --Neoneo13 15:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. While I do think that HRE sincerely believes that he is acting neutrally, I have to agree with Mir Harven above. HRE can often take a very partial approach to delicate issues, and sometimes subscribes to double-standards. I also believe that he has played around with his own nationality to divert attention from his subtle Serb POV. He categorizes himself under Category:Wikipedians in Serbia and Montenegro, but here he claims to live in either Slovenia or Croatia. At that same talk page entry he denies being a Croatian Serb and seems to claim to be a Yugoslav. However, here he says he was born in Croatia, but his family is from Montenegro. Here he denies being a Serb and says he is a Catholic convert to Orthodoxy. Whatever the truth to this sticky matter is, HolyRomanEmperor shouldn't toy with his ethnicity/nationality to deflect attention away from the fact that he is obviously a Serb, or simply subscribes to Serb POV. --Thewanderer 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really all enygmous to me... I categorize myself under, because I live in Serbia and Montenegro. My two houses (one of them being my birthland) are in Slovenia and Croatia; while I was born in actual Croatia, my family originates from Montenegro from my mother's side. And yes, if you must really now, I converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism officially long ago out of mere solidarization with my college-freinds. I said "Well, what the heck! It's all Christianity."
    Examples. I need examples and diffs. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why you barge me like that, but didn't you ever think that your he is obviously a Serb I find insultive. Trully and faithully yours, --HolyRomanEmperor 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  14. Oppose. I strongly oppose. As someone already mentioned Holys work on Wikipedia has one sole goal. Presenting medieval history of Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro as being "serb" history. His work on Tvrtko I is horrible. He even changed kings name to Stefan just to make him a bit more serbian. --EmirA 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above. --StabiloBoss 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose He might have a lot of experience on Wikipedia, however his due to his highly partisan opinions about the sphere of Balkan politics, he is not the best suited candiate for this position. What I have seen from the history of the candidates edits many of them are highly biased, resulting in many flame wars which are supported if the resulting discussion pages are followed. After careful consideration, I am voting against the candidate. FrontLine 01:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's twentieth edit. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not sure about his contributions in Albanian-related articles. Need some more time to give my vote. Ilir pz 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good faith, lack of experience. Rob Church (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral agree with Ilir pz and Rob. Computerjoe's talk 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, can't support because of a recent 24 hour block for reason, "need to defuse". This was on March 6th. Also per other concerns raised by freakofnurture. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Don't have enough information to support/oppose, but this seems a little more contentious than usual. --tomf688{talk} 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose.[reply]
  5. Neutral per freakofnurture. - Mailer Diablo 07:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Most of the oppose votes seem to be content disputes of Serbian/Croatian articles. I am purposely avoiding taking any side at all in this debate, both because I know next to nothing about the Serbian/Croatian situation and because it has no bearing on applying for Wikipedia adminship. But a couple of the oppose votes raise real concerns about this user as a Wikipedia editor. So therefore I can't support him yet. JIP | Talk 12:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, per Rob Church, I would add that while it is extremely gratifying to see more anti-nationalist editors on this particular subject area, I think he needs a wider edit spread, and longer. I would certainly support in another 3-6 months providing edit wars are avoided in that period. - FrancisTyers 12:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Changing vote to neutral due to concerns Rob Church and concerns raised by TheWanderer. JoshuaZ 17:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. Can't support, can't oppose. Royboycrashfan 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - An industrious guy but doesn't always seem to assume good faith when possible. Hard working but range of topics is very narrow too (History of Serbs mainly). --Knucmo2 00:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentare

  • See HolyRomanEmperor's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • From what I have seen in Albanian related articles, I can only oppose. I haven't checked his other work so I don't know. But he has continuously been vandalizing Albanian related articles.
This unsigned comment was added unsigned by User:Dardanv

Comment regarding allegations of ethnic- or national-based voting

There have been allegations of ethnic- or national-based voting in this RfA and assumptions that it would be impossible for a user from the former Yugoslavia to get adminship because the members of other ethnic groups would vote against him/her. This is not really true: Only two weeks ago here, User:Dijxtra from Croatia was successful in his RfA (66/4/0, all opposition coming from non-Balkans users). He was nominated by a user from Serbia and got unanimous support from all the participants from the Balkans. I propose another explanation: that users from the Balkans who voted for and against here were simply in a better position to judge HolyRomanEmperor's edits because of their greater knowledge about the subjects he mainly writes on. --Elephantus 20:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is simply incorrect when talking about people such as Hipi Zhdripi and Dardanv. Refer to previous comment. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I checked one of my older jabber on medieval Bosnia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Coup_de_grace Now-how on earth can a non-expert tell right from wrong re these issues ? Discern propaganda fiction from historically based reality (or, what the majority of historians consider to had been reality) ? My chief issue is with these historical fabrications, products of the 19th century national historiographic romanticism, historical maps as tools in ideological national warfare. As for number of edits & other bureaucratic markers, I'm pretty indifferent. But, the root of these disputes is simple: it's a continuation of warfare. Let's not be deluded. Mir Harven 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
3RR violations, Intervention against vandalism, deleting NC images
I have always wanted to assist the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I believe that wikipedia is overwflown by vandalism, and that always an extra hand is neaded. However, my reversion of vandalism by now is minimal at best; and I think that adminship would greatly assist me in this. Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions that someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react. This is all understandable, naturally; regarding the unproportionally small number of admins towards (other) users. It is here that I would like to lend assistence by reacting as fast as possible to any violation and/or admin-required assistence.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
I have a ton of edits and numerious articles written. One of my largest articles are Duklja – a South Slavic Early Medieval state on the Balkan peninsular and one of the first rulers of modern Montenegro as well as a prominent writer: Petar II Petrović Njegoš. There's also Tvrtko, a medieval Bosnian ruler. Other good articles (on my opinion) are on Medieval Bosnian Bans Stephen II Kotromanić, Kotroman and Matej Ninoslav or Mehmed-pasha Sokolović. History and Litteracy are my main subjects, so I am glad that I can contribute to wikipedia by adding these very little – but rich subjects that unseen pass the eyes of the world. I believe in the Historia magistra vitae est. saying. Other contributions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the history sections of the articles Croats and Skadar, while I am currently rewriting the History of Slovenia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
Unfortunately I have to admit: long ago, I was involved in several disputes. In the conflicts, regardless of the fact if that I turned out correct in most cases, I have acted a little too harsh on several occasions, particularely towards fellow-wikipedians that lead the arguement with me. However, that was a long times ago and I have worked hard to undo the previous over-extensions of my person. I wouldn't say that some users have caused me stress. Surely, some annons that unadvertable push their agenda without any explaination and/or conduct vandalism can be annoying, but I practise self-control. The farthest reach of my stress, I believe, was on the talk page of the Mehmed-pasha Sokolović article, when I said ...this getting a little frustrating... and I am a little ashamed of that. However, one must read up the discussion before judging this (note: I am not attempting to justify that which I said). In the future, I am poised to deal with these kinds of issues the same way I dealt with them like before – through compromise. Occasions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where I inserted both alternitives of a Bosnian Medieval King's title's translation. I am currently orchestrating a compromise on the already-mentioned Mehmed-pasha Sokolović article.
Here are some other examples:
* User:Jakiša Tomić came to my talk page acusing me for conducting propaganda and calling me names. The whole arguement resulted by Jakisha Tomish apologizing to me sincerely and since then we cooperated on Talk:Nikola Tesla.
* User:Ilir_pz had some heavy arguements and we disagreed numerious times, he even insulted me several times, but then we were working together trying to connect the Edit Warriors on the Kosovo article.
I have received numerious notes that I can get along with everyone from users like this one User:Duja, and I think that I can really talk to any kind of a wikipedian. One example is User:Damir_Mišić, who had arguements with most of the Wikipedia, but I managed to lead sencible conversations and stop all arguements (that were soon going to result in an RfC).
4.Question from User:Hipi Zhdripi

If you are neutral way you put the Montenegros and Kosovars under the Serbs. Are you a Serb Nationalist or Wikipedian? If you are the Wikipedian way you have 80% of your "edits" only about Serbia. Are you a member of the German (deutsch) Wikipedia?

NB: There seems to be a campaign to discredit HolyRomanEmperor by certain extremists going on. Hipi Zhdripi was previously banned for repeated use of AOL sockpuppet accounts, page-blanking and vandalism (including vandalising many other wikipedians' userpages [14] [15] [16] [17]), leading to a request for semi-protection for several articles from myself. Since then, he insists on calling everyone who has ever been involved in fighting his vandalism (including people merely using AntiVandal software) sockpuppets. --Asterion 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A
  • Montenegros means nothing. Montenegrins are a seperate ethnic group living majorly in the Republic of Montenegro and they can be never "put under Serbs" as they are a distinct ethnic group; and so are Serbs (please refer to the corresponding articles). There is no need to "put Kosovars under Serbs" because the term Kosovar (please see this article) refers to a Citizen of the UN-proctetorate territory of Kosovo which is only partially inhabited by Serbs. In short notice, you cannot say: All Kosovar are Serbs, but Some Kosovars are Serbs is perfectly correct.
  • No, I am not a Serb Nationalist.
  • The vast majority of my edits are regarding the Montenegrins and Bosnians; they have little to do with Serbia.
  • Although I am a member there, I am afraid that I must admin that I am inactive on the German Wikipedia
5. Question from FrancisTyers

Would you use your admin powers on or relating to articles that you edit for content? - FrancisTyers 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be highly unappropriate. That's like mixing buisiness and personal life. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor_3&oldid=1108748331"